• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher

Status
Not open for further replies.
I actually do think Burr said the right thing. Russians have used left and right to forment divisions and ultimately help Trump. And its also a note of caution that Russians will target GOP next time if they fear Democrats are more sympathetic.

Pretty much, even discounting the "good cop, bad cop" thing he has going with Warner. There's a CRIMINAL investigation going on here with Mueller; at the very least he doesn't want to tip hands, at most he doesn't want to bungle the case.

LOL these leaks are so coordinated

Watch this to be already well-underway. Mueller seems to say indirectly what he has done, not what he will do.
 

pigeon

Banned

Okay, so I read the article and I dunno. A model of the "Democratic loyalists" that lumps together Jamelle Bouie and Jonathan Chait has some immediately obvious flaws, but beyond that, it doesn't actually seem to be saying anything?

This article seems to be written from the perspective of somebody who is neither left nor liberal nor, indeed, political at all. Which explains why the conclusion is simply "both sides should get along."
 
Seems like things are going great across the pond.

http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...paign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202704

British Prime Minister Theresa May gave one of the most important speeches of her political career Wednesday morning. It could not have gone much worse.

The speech, which she delivered to a packed audience of her fellow Conservative Party members in Manchester, started reasonably well — until a prankster approached the stage. The man handed the leader of the United Kingdom a P-45 form, the British equivalent of a pink slip.

"Boris asked me to give you this," the man could be heard saying to May
. Identified later as a comedian named Simon Brodkin, also known as Lee Nelson, the man said the paper was signed by Boris Johnson, May's foreign secretary.

Johnson had been seen as undermining May before the annual conference by staking out a tougher position on the U.K.'s plans to leave the European Union, known as Brexit. A former London mayor, Johnson is widely thought to want to replace May.

After receiving the paper, May fell into a series of coughing fits that dogged her for the rest of her speech. She drank glass after glass of water. Chancellor Philip Hammond, essentially the U.K.'s treasury secretary, stepped up from the audience and handed her a throat lozenge.

At times, May's voice fell to a whisper.

But even as she soldiered on, letters from the party's slogan – "Building A Country That Works for Everyone" —- fell off the wall behind her, making it read "Building A Country That Works Or Everyon."

The scene might have seemed comic had it not been so excruciating to watch.

May's speech today was seen as a crucial opportunity for her to exude confidence and authority over a ruling party that members say now faces an identity crisis and an uncertain path forward.

She spent part of the speech highlighting important issues in British society, including a renewed debate over capitalism and socialism that the party thought it had won in the 1980s under Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Now, the Tories face a resurgent Labour Party, led by Jeremey Corbyn, an avowed socialist.

"We must come together and fight for this mainstream Conservative agenda," May said. "To win the battle of ideas in a new generation all over again. For those ideas are being tested and at stake are the very things we value."

Even before May delivered her remarks, there were accusations that parts may have been plagiarized from The West Wing. But her speech is less likely to be remembered for its ideas than for her painful struggle to deliver them.

A video of the letter falling off the slogan:

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/...y-had-to-give-a-major-speech-it-didnt-go-well
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician

The Kamela Harris thing actually pisses me off. Because there was a lot of substantive criticism around Harris, especially around her background as a criminal prosecutor, that I agree with and that I would like her to publicly reckon with before I throw my weight behind her. When the whole kerfluffle was going down I found myself agreeing with a lot of "more-lefty" types with whom I had friction over the last year or so

And then she endorsed Bernie Sanders Single Payer Healthcare bill and overnight all of the sudden a lot of people I know and follow started retweeting her or publicly displaying support for her in various ways and the other issues seemed to sort of melt away. Its not even ascribable to a shift in her position on healthcare, she's been on record as saying "healthcare is a human right" for ages. It really feels like as soon as she symbolically "got in" with Bernie people got over it. And now I'm pissed off because I do still care about her criminal justice background.
 

pigeon

Banned
The Kamela Harris thing actually pisses me off. Because there was a lot of substantive criticism around Harris, especially around her background as a criminal prosecutor, that I agree with and that I would like her to publicly reckon with before I throw my weight behind her. When the whole kerfluffle was going down I found myself agreeing with a lot of "more-lefty" types with whom I had friction over the last year or so

And then she endorsed Bernie Sanders Single Payer Healthcare bill and overnight all of the sudden a lot of people I know and follow started retweeting her and the other issues seemed to sort of melt away. Its not even ascribable to a shift in her position on healthcare, she's been on record as saying "healthcare is a human right" for ages. It really feels like as soon as she symbolically "got in" with Bernie people got over it. And now I'm pissed off because I do still care about her criminal justice background.

What if, hypothetically, everybody is full of shit
 
The Kamela Harris thing actually pisses me off. Because there was a lot of substantive criticism around Harris, especially around her background as a criminal prosecutor, that I agree with and that I would like her to publicly reckon with before I throw my weight behind her. When the whole kerfluffle was going down I found myself agreeing with a lot of "more-lefty" types with whom I had friction over the last year or so

And then she endorsed Bernie Sanders Single Payer Healthcare bill and overnight all of the sudden a lot of people I know and follow started retweeting her or publicly displaying support for her in various ways and the other issues seemed to sort of melt away. Its not even ascribable to a shift in her position on healthcare, she's been on record as saying "healthcare is a human right" for ages. It really feels like as soon as she symbolically "got in" with Bernie people got over it. And now I'm pissed off because I do still care about her criminal justice background.
that's not been my experience at all. The main mood I remember from her cosponsoring M4A was as a sign of victory for left pressure but the DSA types I know still don't think of her as one of them the way they might for Bernie or Ellison. We might just be in different parts of the Very Online sections of the left though.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
I do like that piece overall. I would say that my personal things that I would like liberals and leftists to learn and genuinely internalize are, respectively

-For liberals/party establishment to realize that it is possible to make fundamental structural shifts on things like American imperialist foreign policy, that there are sacred cows that are worth killing, even if it costs us a backlash. The next time we go, we should go big. Referendum on Puerto Rican statehood. Institutional voting protections.

-For leftists to realize that when progressive ideas or progressive candidates lose, weather its against Democrats in the primaries or Republicans head on, its not always either because the election was rigged or enough resources weren't devoted to the cause. Progressive ideas are not obviously and clearly popular to the populace "if they were just exposed to it/educated about it enough/etc". Sometimes we lose because more people wanted the other thing
 

kirblar

Member
I do like that piece overall. I would say that my personal things that I would like liberals and leftists to learn and genuinely internalize are, respectively

-For liberals/party establishment to realize that it is possible to make fundamental structural shifts on things like American imperialist foreign policy, that there are sacred cows that are worth killing, even if it costs us a backlash. The next time we go, we should go big. Referendum on Puerto Rican statehood. Institutional voting protections.

-For leftists to realize that when progressive ideas or progressive candidates lose, weather its against Democrats in the primaries or Republicans head on, its not always either because the election was rigged or enough resources weren't devoted to the cause. Progressive ideas are not obviously and clearly popular to the populace "if they were just exposed to it/educated about it enough/etc". Sometimes we lose because more people wanted the other thing
In regards to the first point- you have the party mainstream on board those things for ages. Those aren't the asks being made by the left re: FP, those are things we're already on board with. The problem is that foreign policy and a hard black/white worldview are two things that absolutely should not be mixed together in most circumstances.
 
In regards to the first point- you have the party mainstream on board those things for ages. Those aren't the asks being made by the left re: FP, those are things we're already on board with. The problem is that foreign policy and a hard black/white worldview are two things that absolutely should not be mixed together in most circumstances.

The party mainstream is not on board with fundamental structural shifts in American foreign policy. Obama and Clinton foreign policies are as representative as something could possibly be.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Yeah, I'm not sure why Technomancer grouped that with his first point.

Sorry I meant them as examples of semi-seismic shifts in political order. The ACA, as much as I admire what it did, largely fit into what we consider standard legislative framework. We haven't added a state in sixty years. We haven't had a seriously conversation about military spending and the deployment of American violence overseas since....when?
 

pigeon

Banned
Sorry I meant them as examples of semi-seismic shifts in political order. The ACA, as much as I admire what it did, largely fit into what we consider standard legislative framework. We haven't added a state in sixty years. We haven't had a seriously conversation about military spending and the deployment of American violence overseas since....when?

Wait, wait, wait. This distinction seems somewhat artificial. Pre-ACA, there was only a six-year difference between the last time we added a state to the Union and the last time we created a new entitlement program.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Wait, wait, wait. This distinction seems somewhat artificial. Pre-ACA, there was only a six-year difference between the last time we added a state to the Union and the last time we created a new entitlement program.

Maybe it is. Maybe I need to think about this more. Stick a pin in that for now...
 
Supporting statehood for PR and internal voting protections aren't fundamental shifts in American foreign policy!

I think sometimes there's some generalizations going on. A lot of the what the "leftists" agree on liberals do to. What the differences is the prioritization and the degree.
 
The Kamela Harris thing actually pisses me off. Because there was a lot of substantive criticism around Harris, especially around her background as a criminal prosecutor, that I agree with and that I would like her to publicly reckon with before I throw my weight behind her. When the whole kerfluffle was going down I found myself agreeing with a lot of "more-lefty" types with whom I had friction over the last year or so

And then she endorsed Bernie Sanders Single Payer Healthcare bill and overnight all of the sudden a lot of people I know and follow started retweeting her or publicly displaying support for her in various ways and the other issues seemed to sort of melt away. Its not even ascribable to a shift in her position on healthcare, she's been on record as saying "healthcare is a human right" for ages. It really feels like as soon as she symbolically "got in" with Bernie people got over it. And now I'm pissed off because I do still care about her criminal justice background.

she grew up in Montreal as a teen; she knows what Public Healthcare is and knows how to counter the bullshit arguments against it.

which makes her a better candidate to defend public healthcare
 
I think sometimes there's some generalizations going on. A lot of the what the "leftists" agree on liberals do to. What the differences is the prioritization and the degree.

You mean a label distinction invented recently might just be a convenient way to claim an identity on the internet and isn't meaningful for policy? Never.
 

sphagnum

Banned
You mean a label distinction invented recently might just be a convenient way to claim an identity on the internet and isn't meaningful for policy? Never.

There is a distinct difference between leftists and liberals, which is that one is socialist and one is capitalist.
 
These are also Very Online terms. If you were to ask the average American to use a term to describe the most left wing person possible, they would use the term liberal.
 

sphagnum

Banned
I think this is more useful but I think the degree of socialism and what that means on the left is very blurry right now

There's a whole ton of Millennials who think socialism means social democracy so it obfuscates things. But I think anyone with a rose avatar on Twitter knows that reformism has a goal towards...socialism.
 
These are also Very Online terms. If you were to ask the average American to use a term to describe the most left wing person possible, they would use the term liberal.
this is true but I think is also generational, I think younger people are much more likely to use socialist to describe their views or the left even if they might not ideologically identify liberals as the political center.

There's a whole ton of Millennials who think socialism means social democracy so it obfuscated things. But I think anyone with a rose avatar on Twitter knows what that reformism has a goal towards...socialism.
I think people who don't know all of the jargon or big picture ideology but call themselves socialists would probably still be supportive of socialist programs. They might think of Communism as USSR-style authoritarianism and be skeptical of the term but won't be scared off by nationalization.
 
There is a distinct difference between leftists and liberals, which is that one is socialist and one is capitalist.

That's not really what any of this means. "Leftists" are not all socialists and the distinction between American liberals and leftists isn't really about policy. It's more of an identity thing.
 
You mean a label distinction invented recently might just be a convenient way to claim an identity on the internet and isn't meaningful for policy? Never.

I don't know about invented recently, but with many things on the on the internet words become either meaningless or can be very board.

Either way, many left-wing policies is not uncontroversial among many mainstream Democrats. The problems I believe is the realities in governing and the little annoying details.

I think almost all congressional Democrats would vote for single payer, if someone actually knows how to do it well within America( I think no one has at this point). Republicans would oppose it on sheer principle or lack of one.
 
There is a distinct difference between leftists and liberals, which is that one is socialist and one is capitalist.

A bunch of the liberal wing supports single payer now - I think the distinction is more socialist / market socialist, or social democrat, or whatever you call that thing Matt Yglesias wants where you use market means to provide public services and you end up with Obamacare.
 
this is true but I think is also generational, I think younger people are much more likely to use socialist to describe their views or the left even if they might not ideologically identify liberals as the political center.

I still think this will be a Very Online thing for the foreseeable future. I don't think the term liberal is every going to be disassociated with leftism in American politics.

Though no one really says liberal because it's a dirty word, they'd describe themselves as progressive, and then things get murky. Ultimately, I don't think you'll ever see "leftist" become a thing in American politics because a word like progressive will just get coopted.
 

dakini

Member
Anyone catch Rebecca Traister's write-up in NY Magazine about Elizabeth Warren?

The playbook that the right is running against Warren — seeding early criticism designed to weaken her from the left — is pretty ballsy, given that Warren has been a standard-bearer, the crusading, righteous politician who by many measures activated the American left in the years before Bernie Sanders mounted his presidential campaign. Warren is the candidate who many cited in 2016 as the anti-Clinton: the outspoken, uncompromisingly progressive woman they would have supported unreservedly had she only run. Yet now, as many hope and speculate that she might run in 2020, the right is investing in a story line about Warren that is practically indistinguishable from the one they peddled for years about Clinton. And even in these early days, some of that narrative is finding its way into mainstream coverage of Warren, and in lefty reactions to it.

https://www.thecut.com/2017/09/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-sexism.html
 

pigeon

Banned
There is a distinct difference between leftists and liberals, which is that one is socialist and one is capitalist.

I mean, kind of? Except that Western leftists in general have accepted the liberal values of freedom of speech, assembly, religion, self-determination, etc., and lack of discrimination in state action, and liberals in general have more hesitatingly embraced the leftist values of opposing poverty and penury and ensuring all citizens a certain quality of life.

Socialism and liberalism are just inextricably intertwined today. Everybody knows this! People would communicate better if they understood the Venn diagram more. Or if Paradox would finally make Victoria III, that would probably help too.
 
I am too old to know what the fuck very online is supposed to even mean

Now that people in their early twenties are Gen Y, my 30 year old ass can say I'm too old for this shit too. All these young people that don't remember the Bush years are just too green.

I mean, kind of? Except that Western leftists in general have accepted the liberal values of freedom of speech, assembly, religion, self-determination, etc., and lack of discrimination in state action, and liberals in general have more hesitatingly embraced the leftist values of opposing poverty and penury and ensuring all citizens a certain quality of life.

Socialism and liberalism are just inextricably intertwined today. Everybody knows this! People would communicate better if they understood the Venn diagram more.

This is confusing because liberalism and leftism are synonyms in America. The rest of the world has meaningful distinctions between the two, but here it's just an internet thing.
 

Valhelm

contribute something

Love this magazine and think this is a pretty good rundown, particularly in the different conceptions of what type activism is meaningful (like phonebanking versus organizing a strike for stronger rent regulations) and what politics should look like. This passage is especially important:

Behind this divide is a failure to see eye-to-eye over certain larger narratives— narratives that lefties talk about more than liberals do. The left often situates both parties within broader conceptual frameworks, such as neoliberalism, corporate power, and imperialism. To defeat these larger, nefarious societal structures and historical trends, lefties argue, we must identify them and prepare a plan to conquer them — a task more difficult than just defeating the Republicans at the ballot box.

Many liberals, meanwhile, either have not thought about, do not believe in, or do not prioritize addressing these forces. Some have even made fun of lefties for talking too much about “neoliberalism”— a phrase that many centrists believe has no meaning, but that lefties insist is analytically useful. (Ironically, this is the same dynamic at play when conservatives snarkily dismiss phrases like “white supremacy” and “patriarchy” as being meaningless, despite the insistence by both leftists and liberals that you could fill an entire library with books explaining each phrase’s depth of meaning.)

This part is equally important:

Lefties, on the other hand, first need to bring their political passion into mainstream party projects — especially general election campaigns. They should supplement their respect for the ideological fighters working hard to push important issues into the party mainstream with respect for the middle-of-the-road, grassroots Democratic rank-and-file who make sure that the mainstream has enough votes in Congress to make any policy work matter. Rebellious primary challenges and issue campaigns would be seen as more legitimate by grassroots loyalists if they saw that the same people launching them were as passionate about preserving Democratic Party power as they were about reforming its use. If lefties are asking liberals to respect the distinction between lefties and liberals, they should return the favor by respecting the distinction between liberals and their Republican adversaries— and act on that distinction by taking seriously the role the Democratic Party has played as, at the very least, a partial bulwark against the extremes of Republican power.

But like Pigeon said, the article doesn't get into the weeds about how this unity should be manifest. The advice prescribed doesn't go much beyond "Keep repeating the 2016 primary until Democratic party leaders cede institutional power to the left." This isn't new or particularly helpful commentary. We can all agree that when Trump and the GOP dominate each branch of our federal government and almost every state administration, some kind of broader ideological unity is necessary. Rather than just trying harder to win primaries, I think leftist orgs like chapters of the DSA should embed themselves within Democrat-led movements to earn the trust of centrist or ideologically-indifferent Democrats who dominate almost every local Democratic Party.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
lol yeah I've already seen the seeds of this happening. But I'm reasonably confident that the number of people that will actually work on is actually low enough that it wouldn't affect any of her hypothetical prospects

It's gonna work on a ton of people, way more than it should.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom